DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 20, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 19 and 20 are newly added.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-20 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “7.5g/cm3 or more” should be “7.5gcm3 or more.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 19 and Claim 20, the claims recite “wherein the first green compact has an average bulk density of 7.5g/cm3 or more”. While there is support for a bulk density of 7.5g/cm3 (see para. [0052] and [0055] of instant specification), there does not appear to be support and language cannot be found for an average bulk density greater than 7.5g/cm3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perron (previously cited, “Chip reclamation in green machining for high-performance PM components”) in view of Kosco (previously cited, US 20030039572 A1) and Kondoh (previously cited, US 20110206551 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 3, Perron discloses a method for collecting an iron-based powder (Pg. 49, Introduction; Pg. 50, Experimental Procedure, using Fe-based ATOMET 4601 powder), the method comprising the steps of,
preparing a raw material powder containing a first metal powder containing 90% by mass or more of iron (Pg. 50, Experimental Procedure, see ATOMET 4601 powder composition which comprises 90% or more Fe; additionally, FLC-4608 (added 2.0% Cu and 0.6%Co) comprises 90% or more Fe),
forming a green compact by subjecting the raw material powder to uniaxial pressing using a die (Pg. 50, Experimental Procedure, pressed into rings…using a 136 mt (150 st) mechanical press; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the 136 mt mechanical press is a uniaxial pressing machine comprising a die which forms the disclosed ring shape),
machining the green compact (Pg. 50, Col. 2, para. 1; see also Pg. 49, Introduction),
collecting a second metal powder having an average particle diameter of 50um or more and 500um or less from machining chips generated in the step of machining (Pg. 50, Col. 2, para. 1; see also Pg. 49, Introduction; Pg. 51, Col. 2, para. 1, wherein collected chips comprise a mean (average) diameter of 67um, which reads on the claimed range of 50-500um).
Perron discloses mixing the raw powder with 0.65-0.75 wt% internal lubricant (Pg. 50, Chip Reclamation, 0.65wt% FLC-4608; Pg. 51, 0.75wt% EBS), but fails to disclose wherein the raw material powder comprises 0.2wt% or less of the internal lubricant.
Kosco teaches using 0-0.3wt% internal lubricant (preferably no internal lubricant) rather than the typical 0.5-1.3wt%, in order to use inductive sintering for the green compact, which is quicker and less expensive than conventional sintering using electric, pusher or batch sintering, while balancing for trapped gases which form large internal stresses and cause part fracture (para. [0017]-[0018]; para. [0021], wherein metal powder composition reads on that of Perron; para. [0024], wherein internal lubricant is the same composition as Perron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 0-0.3wt% internal lubricant, and preferably no internal lubricant, as taught by Kosco, for the invention disclosed by Perron, in order to use the quicker and less expensive process of inductive sintering, while balancing for trapped gasses which cause internal stresses and part fracture (see teachings above).
Perron fails to disclose the claimed (Claim 1) uniaxial pressing pressure of 1000MPa or higher, and further, (Claim 3) uniaxial pressing pressure of 1500MPa or higher.
Kondoh teaches compaction pressures of 1500MPa or larger in order to obtain close to true density of the green compact such as 98-99%, thereby increasing the strength of the sintered part (para. [0111]; para. [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a uniaxial compaction pressure of 1500MPa or greater, as taught by Kondoh, for the invention disclosed by Perron, in order to obtain a near true density of the green compact, thereby increasing the strength of the sintered part (see teaching above by Kondoh).
Regarding Claim 4, Perron discloses wherein the step of machining is performed using a cutting method (Pg. 50, Col. 2, para. 1; see also Pg. 49, Introduction).
Regarding Claim 5, Perron discloses wherein the first metal powder has an average particle diameter of 20um or more and 200um or less (see Fig. 1, Pg. 51, Col. 2, para. 1, wherein base (first metal) powder comprises a mean (average) diameter of 77um, which reads on the claimed range of 20-200um).
Regarding Claim 6, Perron discloses wherein, in the step of collecting the second metal powder from the machining chips, a metal powder having an average particle diameter of 50um or more and 400um or less is collected from the machining chips (Pg. 50, Col. 2, Systems Investigated; Pg. 51, Col. 2, para. 1, wherein chips collected to be used as second metal powder comprise a mean (average) diameter of 67um, which reads on the claimed range of 50-400um).
Regarding Claim 7, Perron discloses wherein, in the step of collecting the second metal powder from the machining chips, a metal powder having an average particle diameter different from the average particle diameter of the first metal powder is collected (Pg. 51, Col. 2, para. 1, wherein chips collected to be used as second metal powder comprise a mean (average) diameter of 67um, which is different than the mean (average) diameter of 77um of the base (first) metal powder).
Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 11, Perron discloses a method for manufacturing a sintered body (Pg. 49, Introduction), the method comprising the steps of:
preparing a raw material powder containing 90% by mass or more of iron (Pg. 50, Experimental Procedure, Fe-based ATOMET 4601 powder which comprises 90% or more Fe; additionally, FLC-4608 (added 2.0% Cu and 0.6%Co) comprises 90% or more Fe),
forming a first green compact by subjecting the raw material powder to uniaxial pressing using a die (Pg. 50, Experimental Procedure, pressed into rings…using a 136 mt (150 st) mechanical press; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the 136 mt mechanical press is a uniaxial pressing machine comprising a die which forms the disclosed ring shape),
machining the green compact to obtain a machined compact (Pg. 50, Col. 2, para. 1; see also Pg. 49, Introduction),
sintering the machined compact to obtain a sintered body (Pg. 50, Sintered Properties),
wherein the raw material powder contains a regenerated metal powder containing 90% by mass or more of iron collected from machining chips generated when a second green compact different from the first green compact is machined (Pg. 50, Systems Investigated).
Perron discloses mixing the raw powder with 0.65-0.75 wt% internal lubricant (Pg. 50, Chip Reclamation, 0.65wt% FLC-4608; Pg. 51, 0.75wt% EBS), but fails to disclose wherein the raw material powder comprises 0.2wt% or less of the internal lubricant.
Kosco teaches using 0-0.3wt% internal lubricant (preferably no internal lubricant) rather than the typical 0.5-1.3wt%, in order to use inductive sintering for the green compact, which is quicker and less expensive than conventional sintering using electric, pusher or batch sintering, while balancing for trapped gases which form large internal stresses and cause part fracture (para. [0017]-[0018]; para. [0021], wherein metal powder composition reads on that of Perron; para. [0024], wherein internal lubricant is the same composition as Perron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 0-0.3wt% internal lubricant, and preferably no internal lubricant, as taught by Kosco, for the invention disclosed by Perron, in order to use the quicker and less expensive process of inductive sintering, while balancing for trapped gasses which cause internal stresses and part fracture (see teachings above).
Perron fails to disclose the claimed (Claim 9) uniaxial pressing pressure of 1000MPa or higher, and further, (Claim 11) uniaxial pressing pressure of 1500MPa or higher.
Kondoh teaches compaction pressures of 1500MPa or larger in order to obtain close to true density of the green compact such as 98-99%, thereby increasing the strength of the sintered part (para. [0111]; para. [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a uniaxial compaction pressure of 1500MPa or greater, as taught by Kondoh, for the invention disclosed by Perron, in order to obtain a near true density of the green compact, thereby increasing the strength of the sintered part (see teaching above by Kondoh).
Regarding Claim 12, Perron discloses wherein the raw material powder contains 5% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less of the regenerated metal powder collected from the machining chips generated when the second green compact is machined (Pg. 50, Systems Investigated, wherein 5, 10 and 20 wt% of regenerated powder (chips) are used).
Regarding Claim 13, Perron discloses wherein the raw material powder contains 5% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less of the regenerated metal powder collected from the machining chips generated when the second green compact is machined (Pg. 50, Systems Investigated, wherein 5, 10, 20 and 50wt% of regenerated powder (chips) are used).
Regarding Claim 14, Perron discloses wherein the raw material powder contains 5% by mass or more and 70% by mass or less of the regenerated metal powder collected from the machining chips generated when the second green compact is machined (Pg. 50, Systems Investigated, wherein 5, 10, 20 and 50wt% of regenerated powder (chips) are used).
Regarding Claim 15, Perron discloses wherein the step of machining is performed using a cutting method (Pg. 50, Col. 2, para. 1; see also Pg. 49, Introduction).
Regarding Claim 16, Perron discloses wherein the metal powder contained in the raw material powder and containing 90% by mass or more of iron has an average particle diameter of 20um or more and 200um or less, and the regenerated metal powder contained in the raw material powder has an average particle diameter of 50um or more and 500um or less (see Fig. 1, Pg. 51, Col. 2, para. 1, wherein base (first metal) powder comprises a mean (average) diameter of 77um and chips (regenerated powder) collected comprise a mean (average) diameter of 67um, which reads on the claimed ranges of 20-200um and 50-500um, respectively).
Regarding Claim 17, Perron discloses wherein the regenerated metal powder has an average particle diameter different from the average particle diameter of the metal powder (Pg. 51, Col. 2, para. 1, wherein chips collected to be used as second metal powder comprise a mean (average) diameter of 67um, which is different than the mean (average) diameter of 77um of the base (first) metal powder).
Regarding Claim 19 and Claim 20, Kondoh discloses wherein compaction pressures of 1500MPa or larger obtain 98-99% bulk densities of the green compact (para. [0111]; para. [0128]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the composition of Perron (ATOMET 4601 powder comprising 1.8% Ni, 0.5% Mo, 0.2% Mn, 2% Cu, 0.6% C and balance Fe) would comprise a true density of approximately 7.80cm/3, for which 98-99% bulk density of green compact thereof would comprise a value of 7.645-7.723g/cm3, which overlaps and reads on the claimed range of 7.5g/cm3 or more.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perron (previously cited, “Chip reclamation in green machining for high-performance PM components”) in view of Kosco (US 20030039572 A1) and Kondoh (previously cited, US 20110206551 A1), as applied to Claim 1 and Claim 9 above, respectively, in further view of Larsson (previously cited, US 20120187611 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Perron is fails to disclose wherein, in the step of collecting the second metal powder from the machining chips, a metal powder having an average particle diameter larger than the average particle diameter of the first metal powder is collected.
Larsson teaches wherein Fe-based metal powder used for compacting green bodies with pressures up to 1500MPa may comprise a size between 50-150um, in order to be suitable for conventional pressing and sintering techniques (para. [0037]; para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have collected metal powder from the machining chips with an average particle diameter within the range of 50-150um, as taught by Larsson, for the invention disclosed by Perron, because this chip/powder size would be suitable for conventional pressing and sintering techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an average size within the range of Larsson overlaps the claimed limitation for a particle size which is larger than the first metal powder (i.e., a chip/powder size greater than 77um and up to150um, as taught by Larsson, reads on a powder greater than the first powder disclosed by Perron – see Pg. 50, Col. 2, Para. 1, wherein base (first) powder comprises a size of 77um).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided criticality for the powder size.
Regarding Claim 18, Perron fails to disclose wherein the regenerated metal powder has an average particle diameter larger than the average particle diameter of the metal powder.
Larsson teaches wherein Fe-based metal powder used for compacting green bodies with pressures up to 1500MPa may comprise a size between 50-150um, in order to be suitable for conventional pressing and sintering techniques (para. [0037]; para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used regenerated metal powder with an average particle diameter within the range of 50-150um, as taught by Larsson, for the invention disclosed by Perron, because this chip/powder size would be suitable for conventional pressing and sintering techniques.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an average size within the range of Larsson overlaps the claimed limitation for a particle size which is larger than the first metal powder (i.e., a chip/powder size greater than 77um and up to150um, as taught by Larsson, reads on a powder greater than the first powder disclosed by Perron – see Pg. 50, Col. 2, Para. 1, wherein base (first) powder comprises a size of 77um).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided criticality for the powder size.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 20, 2025, with respect to Claim 1 and Claim 9, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Perron in view of Kosco and Kondoh, have been fully considered but are respectfully not found persuasive.
Regarding Perron, Kosco and Kondoh:
Applicant argues that the combination of Perron, Kosco and Kondoh do not teach a raw material with 0.2% by mass or less of an internal lubricant (Remarks, Pg. 8), do not teach a raw material with 0.2% by mass or less of an internal lubricant and a compaction pressure of 1000 MPa or higher (Remarks, Pg. 9), and do not teach a raw material powder containing a first metal powder containing 90% by mass or more of iron and a uniaxial pressing performed at a pressure of 1000 MPa or more (Remarks, Pg. 11).
This argument is not found persuasive.
Perron discloses a first metal powder containing 90% by mass or more of iron, Kosco teaches using an internal lubricant with 0.2% by mass or less, and Kondoh teaches using compaction pressures up to 2000MPa, even for systems comprising no, or alternatively some amount of, internal lubricant (Kondoh, para. [0129]).
Regarding Kosco:
Applicant argues that the combination of Perron with Kosco and Kondoh would render Perron unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant argues that one would not be motivated to change or remove the lubricant of Peron because Perron discloses the lubricant as useful or the green strength and adapted for the powder of Perron.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Perron does not suggest that the amount of the lubricant is critical, and there is no suggestion from Perron that using a different amount of lubricant would cause unsatisfactory results. Applicant does point out which results would be unsatisfactory by modifying the amount of lubricant.
Further, Applicant does not address the teachings or motivation provided by Kosco. Kosco specifically teaches that using 0-0.3wt% internal lubricant is a beneficial alternative to the typical (known in the art) amounts of 0.5-1.3wt% (Perron uses a typical amount of 0.65%). Kosco demonstrates that there would be an expectation for success with lower lubricant amounts (i.e., satisfactory results in Perron), because Kosco successfully uses the same lubricant for a metal composition encompassing that of Perron using the 0-0.3% range (para. [0021], metal powder composition reads on that of Perron; para. [0024], internal lubricant is the same composition as Perron). Additionally, Kondoh also demonstrates that no lubricant may be required for the compaction process which uses compaction pressures up to 2000MPa (Kondoh, para. [0129]). Kosco then teaches the added benefit of being able to use inductive sintering for the green compact, which is quicker and less expensive than conventional sintering using electric, pusher or batch sintering, while balancing for trapped gases which form large internal stresses and cause part fracture (para. [0017]-[0018]). Applicant does not appear to challenge this motivation.
Applicant argues that the lubricant amounts of Kosco are unique for low molding pressures. Applicant argues that Kosco employs a self-lubricating die due to the lower internal lubricant amounts, described in para. [0017] of Kosco. Applicant argues that because Kosco uses a different synthesis method (self-lubricating die, different heating mechanism), one would not be motivated to combine Kosco with Perron and Kondoh.
Applicant argues further that the lower lubricant is only useful because Kosco uses lower molding pressures. Applicant cites para. [0037] of Kosco, which describes that lower molding pressures enable reduction of wear of molding tools, which is enabled by lower lubricant amounts, and cites para. [0035], which describes that the composition (sponge iron) permits good green strength even at lower molding pressures, and suitable green strengths even at lower internal lubricant amounts. Applicant argues this is to be interpreted as Kosco suggesting that lower internal lubricant amounts may only be used for systems with low molding pressures.
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Kosco does not limit the range of internal lubricant to only lower molding pressure systems. Kosco merely suggests that a lower amount of internal lubricant allows for the ability to use lower molding pressures, and demonstrates some reasons to use lower molding pressures. Even though Kosco teaches a range of molding pressure of 10-70 tsi (70 tsi is about 965 MPa), Kosco does not teach that this range is critical, and does not provide disclosure or a teaching away from exceeding this range. It is the Examiner’s opinion therefore that Kosco does not teach away from higher molding pressures, but merely discloses a preferred range of what molding pressures should be. One would be motivated to use the lubricant amounts of Kosco because Kosco teaches that lower lubricant amounts allow for less entrapped gases and increased efficiency by therefore being able to use inductive sintering (para. [0017]-[0018]; see rejection of Claim 1 and Claim 9 above). Further, Kondoh teaches that is known to use higher molding pressures for iron-based powder which comprises no internal lubricant (para. [0129]).
Regarding the use of a self-lubricating die and an induction furnace, Kosco does not limit the die to one that is self-lubricating (“the green compact may be formed using a self-lubricating die or any other device suitable to form a green compact having acceptable green strength” para. [0013]), and it is unclear how these mechanisms would be incompatible with Perron, and a further explanation is not provided by Applicant.
Regarding Kondoh:
Applicant argues that Kondoh teaches a composition comprising 58-70% Mn, and does not comprise 90% or more Fe as claimed, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to comprise a higher molding pressure for the invention of Perron.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Perron already teaches the claimed composition, and Kondoh does not teach wherein compacting pressures are limited to specific compositions. Additionally, the powder referred to by Applicant is the reinforcing powder which is part of the Fe-system powder mixture. Kondoh teaches “‘it is allowable that the Fe-system powder can be either a pure iron powder or an iron alloy powder, or can even be a mixture powder of them. It does not matter at all what alloying elements are included in the iron alloy powder. As these alloying elements, first of all, C, Mn, Si, P, S, and the like, are available.” (para. [0091]). Kondo teaches a narrower range “in a case where the Fe-system powder is an iron alloy powder, it is allowable to set up as follows: C in an amount of 0.02% by mass or less; Mn in an amount of 0.2% by mass or less; and Si in amount of 0.1% by mass or less” which overlaps the Fe-based ATOMET powder of Perron (Fe-1.8% Ni, 0.5% Mo, 0.2% Mn). Further, Kondoh teaches that the powder mixture sinters to a composition which overlaps the composition that the powder mixture of Perron sinters to (para. [0054]-[0058]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Kondoh is relevant and compatible with that of Perron, particularly in view of the compositional overlaps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanejko (previously cited, US 20020025913 A1): teaches die wall lubrication, which reduces and/or eliminates the need to use an internal lubricant and eliminates problems of reduced density (para. [0017]; para. [0041]). Hanejko teaches that when an internal lubricant is added, such as ESB, it is typically present in an amount of 0.1-1.0wt%, preferably 0.1-0.6wt%, wherein lower amounts of internal lubricant improve green density at high compaction pressures (para. [0055]-[0056]; Fig. 2, wherein decreasing amounts of internal lubricant product improved green densities when compacted at 700 MPa).
Kejzelman (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed June 2, 2021, US 20040123696 A1): teaches green strength increases with increasing compaction pressure which allows for handling of green compacts, and teaches compaction pressures greater than 1100MPa, such as 1200MPa (para. [0032]-[0033]; para. [0021]).
Yu (US 20120082587 A1): teaches an Fe-based powder comprising 0.45-1.50% Ni, 0.30-0.55% Mo, 0-0.3% Mn, 0-0.2% Cu, less than 0.1% C and a balance of Fe, mixed with 0.35-1.0% C as graphite and 0-0.3% Cu powder, and 0.05-2% internal lubricant, and using compaction pressure of 400-2000 MPa to form a green density above 6.75g/cm3 (para. [0036]-[0039]; para. [0041]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735